Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR) - Page 9

pvn · #81 11-03-2007, 03:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think animals in the wild is a good analogy to ACism, animals in the wild would be much closer to social darwinism. ACism is built on principles of rights also, the rights to freedom and property.

If you go down to base nature examples, then any system that currently operates is justifiable simply because it exists

[/ QUOTE ]

+1

wtfsvi · #82 11-03-2007, 03:29 PM

Animals do a lot of things. I'm sure you would think I was insane if I defended a concept you didn't like by saying "but animals do it".

Not to mention animals do the whole property thing on a much much smaller scale. But I don't even want to make a point of that, because then I give the impression of having accepted your ridiculous argument.

wtfsvi · #83 11-03-2007, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ownership is not the same as property. And I haven't claimed authority over any "other people." Please cite such an instance.

[/ QUOTE ] I set foot on a piece of land you feel that you have some special rights to, but I don't touch or threaten you or any other persons - you remove me by force - you claim this was legitimate.

You must then also claim to have had some authority over me, right?

foal · #84 11-03-2007, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But they might not agree with your set of objective standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

So, let them propose their own set. We can then compare them.

[/ QUOTE ]

my point is that your claims of "you don't have legitimate authority to do that" or "the government doesn't have any legitimate right to owning this land" don't carry much weight.
if you're saying "hey let me propose this new standard of 'legitimacy' that I like and I think will work well." then that's very different than saying "x isn't legitimate!"

wtfsvi · #85 11-03-2007, 03:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But they might not agree with your set of objective standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

So, let them propose their own set. We can then compare them.

[/ QUOTE ]

my point is that your claims of "you don't have legitimate authority to do that" or "the government doesn't have any legitimate right to owning this land" don't carry much weight.
if you're saying "hey let me propose this new standard of 'legitimacy' that I like and I think will work well." then that's very different than saying "x isn't legitimate!"

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. This is something borodog seems to understand, while I get the impression some of the other ACism supporters on the forum don't.

pvn · #86 11-03-2007, 03:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ownership is not the same as property. And I haven't claimed authority over any "other people." Please cite such an instance.

[/ QUOTE ] I set foot on a piece of land you feel that you have some special rights to, but I don't touch or threaten you or any other persons - you remove me by force - you claim this was legitimate.

You must then also claim to have had some authority over me, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you even worry about what "special rights" I may think I have there, are you claiming a "special right" to step there?

pvn · #87 11-03-2007, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But they might not agree with your set of objective standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

So, let them propose their own set. We can then compare them.

[/ QUOTE ]

my point is that your claims of "you don't have legitimate authority to do that" or "the government doesn't have any legitimate right to owning this land" don't carry much weight.
if you're saying "hey let me propose this new standard of 'legitimacy' that I like and I think will work well." then that's very different than saying "x isn't legitimate!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you be happier with "X hasn't been shown to be legitimate under any consistent objective set of standards"?

wtfsvi · #88 11-03-2007, 03:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ownership is not the same as property. And I haven't claimed authority over any "other people." Please cite such an instance.

[/ QUOTE ] I set foot on a piece of land you feel that you have some special rights to, but I don't touch or threaten you or any other persons - you remove me by force - you claim this was legitimate.

You must then also claim to have had some authority over me, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you even worry about what "special rights" I may think I have there, are you claiming a "special right" to step there?

[/ QUOTE ] I'm claiming special rights to my self and my own body. This means I claim that you don't have the right to use force against me. Doesn't matter where I step, as long as it's not on you.

John Kilduff · #89 11-03-2007, 11:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Animals do a lot of things. I'm sure you would think I was insane if I defended a concept you didn't like by saying "but animals do it".

Not to mention animals do the whole property thing on a much much smaller scale. But I don't even want to make a point of that, because then I give the impression of having accepted your ridiculous argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you might have missed the points.

John Kilduff · #90 11-03-2007, 11:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ownership is not the same as property. And I haven't claimed authority over any "other people." Please cite such an instance.

[/ QUOTE ] I set foot on a piece of land you feel that you have some special rights to, but I don't touch or threaten you or any other persons - you remove me by force - you claim this was legitimate.

You must then also claim to have had some authority over me, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you even worry about what "special rights" I may think I have there, are you claiming a "special right" to step there?

[/ QUOTE ] I'm claiming special rights to my self and my own body. This means I claim that you don't have the right to use force against me. Doesn't matter where I step, as long as it's not on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can enter his house and stand over him while he's sleeping at night, right?